This wasn't about Apple's guilty feelings, it was about consumers. Note, that the article only said *SOME* are manufactured domestically. This knowledge leaves the consumer with the possible hope that their particular unit was not the product of labour that would be illegal in the USA, and can thus could feel potentially less guilty about buying one.
... that this is to appease people's guilt. They won't know for sure where their imac was manufactured, so they might assume they one that they bought was manufactured domestically in order to feel better about buying one/
Uhmmm... to be fair, *MOST* science press releases that are aimed at being seen by the public, and not specifically only for peers with a particular level or type of education, are actually written at about 7th or 8thj grade level.
You have yet to establish any cause for believing the change would do any significant lasting good in the first place or prevent any substantial inflation
This was cited as the entire impetus for making the change in the first place. Yes, it's actually less than a penny a week, but that's for every single man, woman, and child living in Canada... which adds up to a fair amount of money every year. Nonetheless, even that "small" amount was not determined to be worth listening to the objections of people who were opposed to it for no better reason other than the sake of being opposed to change. There was the convenience factor of bills to be considered, which is the reason that higher denomination bills were not also switched over to coins... but this had to be factored into how frequently the unit of currency was actually used, necessitating eventual replacement, and the long term benefits to society of not needing to mint as much currency every year outweighed that. If not switching had been seen to have the longest term benefits (or, in fact, if bills had been much more durable, such as what the new Canadian currency is), the switch would probably not have ever been made. It was, however... and debating the sensibility of that decision, or suggesting that it was not a legitimate decision for an allegedly democratic government to have done, about a quarter of a century after the decision was made in the first place is pointless.
I might suggest that the very fact that most people are evidently now *opposed* to the notion of reintroducing the $1 bill, in spite of the fact that most were also originally opposed to the removal of it, and the fact that had the new and more durable bills been available at the time, the cost savings created by switching to coins would have been substantially less (because the entire reason that coins save money is because bills were getting used so much that they were wearing out unacceptably quickly, necessitating the printing of more bills to replace the worn ones, causing otherwise preventable inflation), and would not have justified the switch in the first place, suggests strongly that the underlying reasons amount to nothing more than fear of change.
And I would maintain is reasonable for a democratically elected government to ignore the whining by its people who are opposed to change for nothing more than the sake of being opposed to change. That's simply not a good enough reason to change direction from doing some lasting good. If you believe otherwise, then it would make sense for any elected government to also, for example, eliminate taxation... since most people are opposed to that as well. But truthfully, such a move would not actually be in the best long term interests of the nation.
I'd suggest it might conclude it evolved, for instance, from the evidence that much simpler machines had existed before it. What reasons would it have to listen to us? Not because it has any particular sci-fi notion to destroy us, but simply because it perceives us as superfluous to its existence, except to the extent that it might realize we have the ability to control it.
And reboot it? Does that not somehow imply that our own sense of morality is greater than that which the machine might possess, by virtue of its free-willed intelligence? Is that our inherent right as its creator? Would that not also mean that if we were created, that our creator has an equal right to do with us as is seen fit, regardless of what we perceive as right or wrong?
The reason people didn't use the bill was not simply because of the practical advantages of the bill, but simply because people are adverse to change. That's not a good enough reason to not do something that is otherwise quite beneficial. Indeed... in at least one informal survey taken recently, in the aftermath of the announcement of Canada's switching to a new type of foldable curency that is considerably more durable than paper (and would thus render the financial reasons for switching to the coin in the first place as correspondingly much less significant), much of the Canada's modern population would apparently now actually *resist* the reintroduction of the $1 bill , if the mint were to consider it, which shows that even the very practical benefits that people were listing as justification to resist the introduction of the $1 coin are far outweighed by people's desire to avoid change.
In a nutshell, the reason that people gave to avoid using the coin was bullshit, and in hindsight, legitimately justifies the government's decision to ignore what people merely *believed* that they wanted.
I think you will be very hard pressed to argue convincingly that a complete loss of copyright would not massively increase the amount of works most people have access to
I've already considered that hypothesis, and concluded it to be false. My reasoning is two-fold. First, it seems to me that if what you say it were true, then a much higher percentage of material that is already freely available would have been put immediately into public domain, rather than being copyrighted at all... which suggests to me that the right of copy control is desirable if to the free content maker. The hypothesis also does not stand up to historical precedent, because it's already been seen that when content makers start to feel that they cannot rely on copyright alone to protect their interests (which, as I maintained above, only requires that society simply respect it), they can and *DO* resort to alternative measures to retain that control.... measures that society has no part in, and which inherently *limit* their accessibility of the works, reducing the enrichment potential of society. Even worse, it can followed by the creation of additional laws to support those measures. It is, by my reckoning, an almost invariable certainty that the dissolution of copyright would lead to a very small percentage of the population having access to the body of newly published works, rather that increase it, as you suggest.
Did I mention anything about the entertainment business?
Did I say anything that suggested that what I was talking about had even the slightest bit to do with money?
Of course the ultimately goal is cultural enrichment through the availability of a diverse arrangement of works. That's actually the purpose of copyright's existence! It's pretty obvious, however, that the desire to, at least for a limited time, exercise some control over who may make copies of a work, is a highly desirable one to content makers (indeed, that's how it works). If society is willing to respect that notion, then such providers can be encouraged to utilize it, and possibly be encouraged to provide more such content. This copy control is desirable even to content makers that *DO* make freely available works, since if they did not find the notion of copy control so appealing, they would simply release works into public domain rather than utilize copyright at all.
And again... this has absolutely nothing to do with money, or the entertainment business.
But the main thrust of my argument is that control is granted by society
Absolutely! And it is my contention is that if that control is *NOT* offered, then the content creator will not have any incentive to try to utilize it, resorting to their own mechanisms to control their content, such as through self-censorship, or the use of technological controls... both of which limit the audience that can really benefit from the work.
The poster to whom I had originally responded claimed to not desire to defend infringement while defending TPB. It was to that mindset that the challenge was issued.
I was not so much suggesting that the right of a creator to be rewarded should be axiomatic, as you put it, as I am of the belief that it should be the right of a creator to, for a limited time, retain control over copies of his or her works, just as they did before the invention of the printing press by virtue of the fact that copying was hard.
I fully realize that it's a wholly artificial constraint, but it is, in my view, this level of control that is what offers most content providers to make their content.
If you disagree, then I trust that everything you've ever contributed to society is also in the public domain... after all, if the copyright, which is literally the "right to copy" (or more accurately, the right to control copies) were not important to you, then why would you want to utilize it?
The point of the change was not to adopt to what people preferred, but what would save money. The coin's longevity was desirable... and when it was seen that just reducing the print runs on $1 bills only created more demand for them, it was seen as most prudent to cut the bill out entirely.
hose who would self-censor their innovations can keep them.
You seem to think that the only ones who would self-censor are those with nothing of value to contribute to society. It is society's loss if people censor themselves... to discard it and say that somebody who would do that couldn't have possibly had anything of value to contribute anyways is nothing but a rationalization that might make you feel better, but it doesn't make it true.
You conclude that I've somehow bought into "their campaign", when in fact, I am siding with the consumer.
When I refer to the availability of cultural enriching content, at what point did I appear to you to suggest I was only talking about the, as you put it, "poorer selection" of art that the community mindlessly consumes only because it is spoon fed?
I dare say a great deal more than what you may currently be aware is impacted by the value of copyright... and the common man's ability to access is almost invariably negatively impacted when publishers decide that copyright cannot protect their interests (which has nothing to do with revenue streams or big media... neither of which are of interest to me).
The reason it failed was because the USA didn't actually make the decision to stop printing $1 bills.
Canada initially made a similar error when we introduced the loonie here. The $1 bill was not actually removed from circulation (they only reduced the number of $1 bills printed) for a number of months after the coin's introduction, during which the $1 bills that existed were wearing out faster (because people preferred them to coins and would use them so much more frequently), and this necessitated the mint printing more than initially estimated. The solution, Canada determined, was to discontinue the $1 bill entirely and increase production of the $1 coin to compensate.
Actually, the $1 and $2 coins in Canada were handled very differently.
As far as my understanding goes, the ordinary policy with Canadian currency is that bills and coins will remain in circulation until they have experienced a certain amount of physical wear and tear. As a matter of general practice, when such a worn note or coin makes its way to a bank, it is not returned to the public, but is instead supposed to be returned to the Mint for destruction. As worn currency is returned to the mint, as long as it is still in circulation, additional currency is manufactured to replace what has been destroyed. When the mint actually wants something removed from circulation, again as a general practice, the bank simply returns *all* such currency to the mint, regardless of its condition, and does not (generally speaking) distribute it back to the public.
When the $1 coin was introduced, Canada did not actually remove the $1 from circulation... and, in fact, still continued to print them, albeit at much lower quantity. It was noted, however, that usage of the $1 bill was not experiencing the expected considerable drop (and the bills were wearing out faster, because there were fewer of them, and so they got used that much more, which was necessitating the printing of additional $1 bills), the $1 bill was eventually pulled from circulation entirely, and the $1 coin, widely known almost immediately as the "loonie", a nickname intended to be a pun on the fact that the coin bore a loon on one side, and to imply that at the time, many people thought it was "loony" to be replacing the incredibly useful $1 bill with a coin, finally started becoming widely adopted.
When Canada introduced the $2 coin, the mint simultaneously removed the $2 bill from circulation, which sped up its adoption considerably.
Canada will only be eliminating the penny from circulation. Amounts will still be charged to the penny, however. When cash is used, bottom line totals will be required rounded up or down to the nearest nickel, as appropriate.
So that means you might get one or two cents savings by paying cash instead of electronically, but it's also possible you could pay one or two cents more.
Here's something that isn't remotely secret. I didn't mention big media, nor do I give a crap what big media does or does not care about.
I do, however, care about the ongoing usefulness of copyright, and it's daft to think that epidemic levels of wanton infringement that can occur on copyright because of websites like TPB are not damaging to the value of copyright, as a whole.
Copyright isn't worth dick-all if society will not, as a whole, respect it. Content providers can and most definitely will find other means to protect their interests if or when copyright will not suffice, which include, but are certainly not limited to, self-censorship, technological protections that adversely affect legitimate customers, and higher prices. Regardless of what alternative is chosen, society as a whole suffers, because they will not be able to access as much cultural-enriching content as they might have otherwise... which is, in the end, the actual underlying purpose of copyright (not to guarantee a revenue stream, as some people, including many in big media, seem to believe).
I explicitly said that I wasn't disputing the legitimate usefulness of torrents. Nice of you to read what I wrote.
There are thousands of legitimate torrents out there, but almost all of these are seeded by their publishers, and there are often direct links to the torrent file hosted on a website that obviously belongs to said publisher.
I *was*, however, disputing the legitimacy of TPB... since, as I said, it does not appear to serve any useful legitimate function.
Again, name 3 legitimate products you can get via TPB that aren't just as readily available (as a torrent, even) from far more reputable sources.
Name 3 distinct products, created by different people, that are indexed on the pirate bay and that are not also provided through other avenues which are considerably less infested with infringing content, and which are not, themselves, little more than an alleged "proof of concept" that TPB has legitimate use.
Note that I'm not disputing usefulness of torrents... here, but it's my observation that legitimate torrents that are actually on TPB are (generally) also legitimately hosted elsewhere anyways, and could often easily be found at such locations via a google search, so TPB isn't actually serving any useful purpose in that regard.
Slashdot Mirror
no... we're about to accomplish extra-solar travel. Interstellar travel would actually entail reaching another star.
I'd expect that to be a trivial accomplishment if they are advanced enough to accomplish interstellar travel.
It doesn't have to make sense... I was talking about feelings here, and rather feeble rationalization.
This wasn't about Apple's guilty feelings, it was about consumers. Note, that the article only said *SOME* are manufactured domestically. This knowledge leaves the consumer with the possible hope that their particular unit was not the product of labour that would be illegal in the USA, and can thus could feel potentially less guilty about buying one.
... that this is to appease people's guilt. They won't know for sure where their imac was manufactured, so they might assume they one that they bought was manufactured domestically in order to feel better about buying one/
Uhmmm... to be fair, *MOST* science press releases that are aimed at being seen by the public, and not specifically only for peers with a particular level or type of education, are actually written at about 7th or 8thj grade level.
Wow.. Katrina blew those *REALLY* far, didn't she?
This was cited as the entire impetus for making the change in the first place. Yes, it's actually less than a penny a week, but that's for every single man, woman, and child living in Canada... which adds up to a fair amount of money every year. Nonetheless, even that "small" amount was not determined to be worth listening to the objections of people who were opposed to it for no better reason other than the sake of being opposed to change. There was the convenience factor of bills to be considered, which is the reason that higher denomination bills were not also switched over to coins... but this had to be factored into how frequently the unit of currency was actually used, necessitating eventual replacement, and the long term benefits to society of not needing to mint as much currency every year outweighed that. If not switching had been seen to have the longest term benefits (or, in fact, if bills had been much more durable, such as what the new Canadian currency is), the switch would probably not have ever been made. It was, however... and debating the sensibility of that decision, or suggesting that it was not a legitimate decision for an allegedly democratic government to have done, about a quarter of a century after the decision was made in the first place is pointless.
I might suggest that the very fact that most people are evidently now *opposed* to the notion of reintroducing the $1 bill, in spite of the fact that most were also originally opposed to the removal of it, and the fact that had the new and more durable bills been available at the time, the cost savings created by switching to coins would have been substantially less (because the entire reason that coins save money is because bills were getting used so much that they were wearing out unacceptably quickly, necessitating the printing of more bills to replace the worn ones, causing otherwise preventable inflation), and would not have justified the switch in the first place, suggests strongly that the underlying reasons amount to nothing more than fear of change.
And I would maintain is reasonable for a democratically elected government to ignore the whining by its people who are opposed to change for nothing more than the sake of being opposed to change. That's simply not a good enough reason to change direction from doing some lasting good. If you believe otherwise, then it would make sense for any elected government to also, for example, eliminate taxation... since most people are opposed to that as well. But truthfully, such a move would not actually be in the best long term interests of the nation.
I'd suggest it might conclude it evolved, for instance, from the evidence that much simpler machines had existed before it. What reasons would it have to listen to us? Not because it has any particular sci-fi notion to destroy us, but simply because it perceives us as superfluous to its existence, except to the extent that it might realize we have the ability to control it.
And reboot it? Does that not somehow imply that our own sense of morality is greater than that which the machine might possess, by virtue of its free-willed intelligence? Is that our inherent right as its creator? Would that not also mean that if we were created, that our creator has an equal right to do with us as is seen fit, regardless of what we perceive as right or wrong?
In a nutshell, the reason that people gave to avoid using the coin was bullshit, and in hindsight, legitimately justifies the government's decision to ignore what people merely *believed* that they wanted.
I've already considered that hypothesis, and concluded it to be false. My reasoning is two-fold. First, it seems to me that if what you say it were true, then a much higher percentage of material that is already freely available would have been put immediately into public domain, rather than being copyrighted at all... which suggests to me that the right of copy control is desirable if to the free content maker. The hypothesis also does not stand up to historical precedent, because it's already been seen that when content makers start to feel that they cannot rely on copyright alone to protect their interests (which, as I maintained above, only requires that society simply respect it), they can and *DO* resort to alternative measures to retain that control.... measures that society has no part in, and which inherently *limit* their accessibility of the works, reducing the enrichment potential of society. Even worse, it can followed by the creation of additional laws to support those measures. It is, by my reckoning, an almost invariable certainty that the dissolution of copyright would lead to a very small percentage of the population having access to the body of newly published works, rather that increase it, as you suggest.
Did I mention anything about the entertainment business?
Did I say anything that suggested that what I was talking about had even the slightest bit to do with money?
Of course the ultimately goal is cultural enrichment through the availability of a diverse arrangement of works. That's actually the purpose of copyright's existence! It's pretty obvious, however, that the desire to, at least for a limited time, exercise some control over who may make copies of a work, is a highly desirable one to content makers (indeed, that's how it works). If society is willing to respect that notion, then such providers can be encouraged to utilize it, and possibly be encouraged to provide more such content. This copy control is desirable even to content makers that *DO* make freely available works, since if they did not find the notion of copy control so appealing, they would simply release works into public domain rather than utilize copyright at all.
And again... this has absolutely nothing to do with money, or the entertainment business.
Absolutely! And it is my contention is that if that control is *NOT* offered, then the content creator will not have any incentive to try to utilize it, resorting to their own mechanisms to control their content, such as through self-censorship, or the use of technological controls... both of which limit the audience that can really benefit from the work.
The poster to whom I had originally responded claimed to not desire to defend infringement while defending TPB. It was to that mindset that the challenge was issued.
I fully realize that it's a wholly artificial constraint, but it is, in my view, this level of control that is what offers most content providers to make their content.
If you disagree, then I trust that everything you've ever contributed to society is also in the public domain... after all, if the copyright, which is literally the "right to copy" (or more accurately, the right to control copies) were not important to you, then why would you want to utilize it?
The point of the change was not to adopt to what people preferred, but what would save money. The coin's longevity was desirable... and when it was seen that just reducing the print runs on $1 bills only created more demand for them, it was seen as most prudent to cut the bill out entirely.
You seem to think that the only ones who would self-censor are those with nothing of value to contribute to society. It is society's loss if people censor themselves... to discard it and say that somebody who would do that couldn't have possibly had anything of value to contribute anyways is nothing but a rationalization that might make you feel better, but it doesn't make it true.
You conclude that I've somehow bought into "their campaign", when in fact, I am siding with the consumer.
When I refer to the availability of cultural enriching content, at what point did I appear to you to suggest I was only talking about the, as you put it, "poorer selection" of art that the community mindlessly consumes only because it is spoon fed?
I dare say a great deal more than what you may currently be aware is impacted by the value of copyright... and the common man's ability to access is almost invariably negatively impacted when publishers decide that copyright cannot protect their interests (which has nothing to do with revenue streams or big media... neither of which are of interest to me).
The reason it failed was because the USA didn't actually make the decision to stop printing $1 bills.
Canada initially made a similar error when we introduced the loonie here. The $1 bill was not actually removed from circulation (they only reduced the number of $1 bills printed) for a number of months after the coin's introduction, during which the $1 bills that existed were wearing out faster (because people preferred them to coins and would use them so much more frequently), and this necessitated the mint printing more than initially estimated. The solution, Canada determined, was to discontinue the $1 bill entirely and increase production of the $1 coin to compensate.
It worked.
Actually, the $1 and $2 coins in Canada were handled very differently.
As far as my understanding goes, the ordinary policy with Canadian currency is that bills and coins will remain in circulation until they have experienced a certain amount of physical wear and tear. As a matter of general practice, when such a worn note or coin makes its way to a bank, it is not returned to the public, but is instead supposed to be returned to the Mint for destruction. As worn currency is returned to the mint, as long as it is still in circulation, additional currency is manufactured to replace what has been destroyed. When the mint actually wants something removed from circulation, again as a general practice, the bank simply returns *all* such currency to the mint, regardless of its condition, and does not (generally speaking) distribute it back to the public.
When the $1 coin was introduced, Canada did not actually remove the $1 from circulation... and, in fact, still continued to print them, albeit at much lower quantity. It was noted, however, that usage of the $1 bill was not experiencing the expected considerable drop (and the bills were wearing out faster, because there were fewer of them, and so they got used that much more, which was necessitating the printing of additional $1 bills), the $1 bill was eventually pulled from circulation entirely, and the $1 coin, widely known almost immediately as the "loonie", a nickname intended to be a pun on the fact that the coin bore a loon on one side, and to imply that at the time, many people thought it was "loony" to be replacing the incredibly useful $1 bill with a coin, finally started becoming widely adopted.
When Canada introduced the $2 coin, the mint simultaneously removed the $2 bill from circulation, which sped up its adoption considerably.
Canada will only be eliminating the penny from circulation. Amounts will still be charged to the penny, however. When cash is used, bottom line totals will be required rounded up or down to the nearest nickel, as appropriate.
So that means you might get one or two cents savings by paying cash instead of electronically, but it's also possible you could pay one or two cents more.
Here's something that isn't remotely secret. I didn't mention big media, nor do I give a crap what big media does or does not care about.
I do, however, care about the ongoing usefulness of copyright, and it's daft to think that epidemic levels of wanton infringement that can occur on copyright because of websites like TPB are not damaging to the value of copyright, as a whole.
Copyright isn't worth dick-all if society will not, as a whole, respect it. Content providers can and most definitely will find other means to protect their interests if or when copyright will not suffice, which include, but are certainly not limited to, self-censorship, technological protections that adversely affect legitimate customers, and higher prices. Regardless of what alternative is chosen, society as a whole suffers, because they will not be able to access as much cultural-enriching content as they might have otherwise... which is, in the end, the actual underlying purpose of copyright (not to guarantee a revenue stream, as some people, including many in big media, seem to believe).
I explicitly said that I wasn't disputing the legitimate usefulness of torrents. Nice of you to read what I wrote.
There are thousands of legitimate torrents out there, but almost all of these are seeded by their publishers, and there are often direct links to the torrent file hosted on a website that obviously belongs to said publisher.
I *was*, however, disputing the legitimacy of TPB... since, as I said, it does not appear to serve any useful legitimate function.
Again, name 3 legitimate products you can get via TPB that aren't just as readily available (as a torrent, even) from far more reputable sources.
Name 3 distinct products, created by different people, that are indexed on the pirate bay and that are not also provided through other avenues which are considerably less infested with infringing content, and which are not, themselves, little more than an alleged "proof of concept" that TPB has legitimate use.
Note that I'm not disputing usefulness of torrents... here, but it's my observation that legitimate torrents that are actually on TPB are (generally) also legitimately hosted elsewhere anyways, and could often easily be found at such locations via a google search, so TPB isn't actually serving any useful purpose in that regard.